lexical for-in/for-of loose end

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Mon Feb 6 11:24:58 PST 2012


Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote:
> We're putting a lot of energy into trying to figure out how to "fix" for(let;;) when it probably shouldn't even be the preferred form of numeric looping going forward. If we can make for-in/for-of attractive enough then it is less clear why we need to fix for(;;)
>
> for (var i=0, n<n; I++) capture(function () {i});
>
> still have to be modified to
>
> for (let i=0, n<n; I++) capture(function () {i});
>
> to "fix" the capture bug in existing code. Why not make the new better way something like
>
> for (let i of range(0,n)) capture(function () {i});

I'm a big fan of iterators and this will be winning. Indeed many 
languages add a range operator for more convenience:

   for (let i of 0..n) ...

or perhaps ... (yech).

> and promote the hell out of it while leavingfor(;;) as is.

Here I demur. We can promote all we want. Won't necessarily do a thing 
to JS developers who see for(let;;) as a better way to write (or 
migrate, note well) code they wrote (or inherited, double note well) 
that uses for(var;;).


>    Maybe don't even add let/const forms to for(;;).

Again I dissent. We're not making a "new language", so breaking symmetry 
to deprecate looks like nanny-ing. It usually fails, in my experience. 
It doesn't help migration.

You make a good point: we should not overcomplicate for(let;;) at high 
cost. I'm happy with Andreas's proposed 0th-iter scope desugaring, 
modulo nagging doubts that are going away even as I type.

/be


More information about the es-discuss mailing list